IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 76/10 DATED 24.03.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri. Venkatesh S. Pai S/o late Sri Sudhakar V. Pai, R/at # 5, “K” Block, Adi Chunchanagiri Road, Near Ramana Gnana Kendra, Kuvempunagara, Mysore-570023.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. P.D.R, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Bharati Airtel Ltd., No.14/5, Iah Towers, J.L.B. Road, Lakshmipuram, Mysore-570004. <br /> <br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.03.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 24.03.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, Bharathi Airtel Ltd., alleging certain deficiency in service and has prayed to refund the amount with interest as well as damages of Rs.50,000/- with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Considering the facts alleged in the complaint, we have heard the complainant regarding maintainability of complaint and perused the records. <br /> 3. Now we have to consider whether the complaint can be admitted and that it is maintainable? <br /> 4. For the following reasons, our finding is in negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The grievance alleged by the complainant against the opposite party is, non shifting of Broadband line to the new residence of the complainant. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court reported in III (2009) CPJ 71 AIR 2010 SC 90, the Forum had to consider whether the present complaint is maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court considering Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act has held that the special law over rides the general law. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the complaint before Consumer Forum regarding non-payment of the bill of the telephone is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 6. Learned advocate for the complainant submitted that, the said ruling is in respect of the telephone “bill” where as the dispute in the case on hand relates to shifting of the telephone connection. Further the learned advocate points out that, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said ruling has referred to its earlier ruling reported in (1995) 2SCC 479 relating to compensation regarding injury suffered in Motor accident.<br /> <br /> 7. It is true, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said ruling was considering the case relating to non payment of the telephone bill, consequently disconnection of the telephone line. But, it is relevant to note Section 7B(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It reads thus,<br /> <br /> “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section”. (Underlying is ours.)<br /> <br /> 8. Hence, when the Hon’ble Apex court with reference to section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act has held that, the special law over rides the general law and that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaints in respect of telecommunication disputes, it is not only in respect of the telephone “bill”, but also telephone “line”. Hence, submission of the learned advocate that, the ruling is not applicable to the facts to the case on hand, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 9. Consequently, we are of the opinion that, in view of the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to complainant according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 24th March 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />